Death is a natural phenomenon, and there is nothing magical or mythological about it. Likewise, when someone dies/is dying, it's natural for us to grive and cope with it in various ways.

Yet, christianity,[1] doesn't want to accept the idea that death is something that "just happens". Instead, it would have us belive that death is a supernatural phenomenon, created by god as a punishment for sin. All because two people munched on the wrong fruit. The bible confirms this idea in such passages as Romans 6:23. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Some christains takes this idea very seriously, as evidence here (warning: incoherent nonsense within).

Quote

Death and suffering is the penalty for sin. When Adam rebelled against God, in effect he was saying that he wanted life without God. He wanted to decide truth for himself, independent of God. Now the Bible tells us that Adam was the head of the human race, representing each one of us, who are his descendants. Paul says in Romans 5:12–19 that we sin ‘in Adam,’ after the likeness of Adam. In other words, we have the same problem Adam had. When Adam rebelled against God, all human beings, represented by Adam, effectively said that they wanted life without God.

God had to judge Adam’s sin with death. He had already warned Adam that if he sinned, he would ‘surely die.’ After Adam’s Fall, he and all his descendants forfeited the right to live. After all, God is the author of life. Death is the natural penalty of choosing life without God, the giver of life. Also, because the Lord is holy and just, there had to be a penalty for rebellion.

The Bible makes it clear that death is the penalty for our sin, not just the sin of Adam. If you accept the Bible’s account of history, then our sins—not just the sins of ‘the other guy’—are responsible for all the death and suffering in the world! In other words, it is really our fault that the world is the way it is. No-one is really ‘innocent.

All this leads to my question; why do christains assume that cancer patients will go to heaven? In their worldview, death and suffering is not something that "just happens". Instead, it's a punishment for sin, which we're all guilty of. So wouldn't be sensible to assume that those with cancer were extra-sinful in life, given that god has saw fit to inflict suffering upon them? Their friends and family should act like the friends of Job; questioning what they did to deserve god's wrath. Likewise, if they die of cancer, shouldn't that be taken as a sign that god has not forgiven them for their sins, no matter how much song and dance they do about being "at peace" with Jesus? Instead, we always get the teary-eye "with god in heaven" route.

Of course, I think the answer is that they don't really buy into this "sin is the cause of death" BS, and they know that things like cancer is something that "just happens" to some. So why accept a religion that has such an idea as a basic part of its theology?

The idea of personal suffering being proportional to one's evil acts (or one's ancestors' evil acts) was a theme in early Jewish theology, not Christian theology. It's interesting that you bring up Job, because Job is actually a response to that theology, using a story to refute it as an adequate explanation for human suffering given the observation that exceptions to that system definitely seem to occur. Job's friends are stand-ins for that older way of thinking, and by the end of the story God Himself comes down to refute their claims.

Christians believe that death and suffering are due to sin, but not that either occurs in proportion to one's own sin. Rather, they believe that sin has corrupted the world, and that everyone--including cancer patients--is now living in that world.

In other words, this:

Quote

So wouldn't be sensible to assume that those with cancer were extra-sinful in life, given that god has saw fit to inflict suffering upon them?

The idea of personal suffering being proportional to one's evil acts (or one's ancestors' evil acts) was a theme in early Jewish theology, not Christian theology.

It's in the bible, so it's part of Christian theology by proxy, if nothing else.

Quote

It's interesting that you bring up Job, because Job is actually a response to that theology, using a story to refute it as an adequate explanation for human suffering given the observation that exceptions to that system definitely seem to occur. Job's friends are stand-ins for that older way of thinking, and by the end of the story God Himself comes down to refute their claims.

...and in the story, it turned out that the reason for Job's suffering was because god was dicking around with him. Yeah, some refutation. I'll say this much; it makes the "sin of the forefather" looks more reasonable by comparison. At least that idea seems less flat-out dickish.

Quote

Christians believe that death and suffering are due to sin, but not that either occurs in proportion to one's own sin. Rather, they believe that sin has corrupted the world, and that everyone--including cancer patients--is now living in that world.

It's in the bible, so it's part of Christian theology by proxy, if nothing else.

"Theology by proxy" is not a part of any Christian denomination's teachings that I know of. Is that term even defined?

If you push it I'll probably ask you to cite verses as evidence of your assertion that it's in there, but at current I see no reason to pursue this nebulous concept of yours.

Quote

...and in the story, it turned out that the reason for Job's suffering was because god was dicking around with him. Yeah, some refutation. I'll say this much; it makes the "sin of the forefather" looks more reasonable by comparison. At least that idea seems less flat-out dickish.

Regardless of what you may or may not find reasonable, "sin of the forefather" is not currently a part of Christian theology.

Quote

So why do some people suffer more than others?

We're living in a world where it can happen, so it happens. Sin creates the conditions in which suffering can occur, so it occurs.

"Theology by proxy" is not a part of any Christian denomination's teachings that I know of. Is that term even defined?

If you push it I'll probably ask you to cite verses as evidence of your assertion that it's in there, but at current I see no reason to pursue this nebulous concept of yours.

I was in a bit of a rush, so I phrased this very poorly. I was trying to say that the bible does teach that god does punish people for the sins of their father/forefather.

Numbers 14:18The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.

Deuteronomy 5:9You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Exodus 34:5-7Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

There are several other passages that says basically the same thing. I am aware that there are several other passages that claims the exact opposite. I am by no means trying to say that the bible is consistent about this matter. At any rate, "sins of the father/forefather" is in the bible, thus, it's part of Christain theology, or at least it should be. Unless you want to say that god changed his mind, and asked his followers to ignore a large swath of what he said (which in itself seems like a can of worms).

Quote

Regardless of what you may or may not find reasonable, "sin of the forefather" is not currently a part of Christian theology.

As I've pointed out, it's in the bible, so it is part of Christian theology. Beside, that site I linked to does state that we're all being punished for something our ancestors did. Adam, to be more precise.

Quote

God had to judge Adam’s sin with death. He had already warned Adam that if he sinned, he would ‘surely die.’ After Adam’s Fall, he and all his descendants forfeited the right to live. After all, God is the author of life. Death is the natural penalty of choosing life without God, the giver of life. Also, because the Lord is holy and just, there had to be a penalty for rebellion.

Quote

We're living in a world where it can happen, so it happens. Sin creates the conditions in which suffering can occur, so it occurs.

That statement does nothing to explain why some people suffer more than others.

I was in a bit of a rush, so I phrased this very poorly. I was trying to say that the bible does teach that god does punish people for the sins of their father/forefather.

Fair enough.

Quote

There are several other passages that says basically the same thing.

They all share a similar language construction, which is pretty common with the Hebrew figure of speeches found in the Bible. The modern interpretation of this is that it refers to our actions having consequences to people other than us and the infectiousness of sin, not God punishing someone for someone else's sins.

Quote

At any rate, "sins of the father/forefather" is in the bible, thus, it's part of Christain theology, or at least it should be. Unless you want to say that god changed his mind, and asked his followers to ignore a large swath of what he said (which in itself seems like a can of worms).

Maybe for a Bible literalist. The vast majority of Christians are not literalists, and over half aren't sola scriptura.

Quote

As I've pointed out, it's in the bible, so it is part of Christian theology.

No, not everything the historic Jews believed is Christian theology. Abraham's initial polytheistic views are not Christian theology, nor is the early lack of belief in an afterlife, or anything else that's been outmoded.

Quote

Beside, that site I linked to does state that we're all being punished for something our ancestors did. Adam, to be more precise.

Original sin is not the same as proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime.

Quote

That statement does nothing to explain why some people suffer more than others.

Yes it does. In a world where sin has made suffering probable, the amount of suffering one experiences is simply a matter of probability. A roll of the dice.

They all share a similar language construction, which is pretty common with the Hebrew figure of speeches found in the Bible. The modern interpretation of this is that it refers to our actions having consequences to people other than us and the infectiousness of sin, not God punishing someone for someone else's sins.

Sounds more like some really don't like the whole concept of "sins of the father". I don't blame them for that, but it does means ignoring statements from god himself.

I've noticed that your comments talks about modern interpretation. What about the interpretations of the passages were 4,000-odd years ago? I think that's a bit more relevant.

Quote

Maybe for a Bible literalist. The vast majority of Christians are not literalists, and over half aren't sola scriptura.

This is stuff said by god himself. What more do you need?

Quote

No, not everything the historic Jews believed is Christian theology. Abraham's initial polytheistic views are not Christian theology, nor is the early lack of belief in an afterlife, or anything else that's been outmoded.

Again, we're dealing with the words of god himself. Exactly how can that be outmoded? By... god himself? Wonder how that works...

Quote

Original sin is not the same as proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime.

The point I was making in reply to your comment was that "original sin" is an example of "sins of the father". We have gotten off-track on the whole "proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime" thing, I'll give you that.

Quote

Yes it does. In a world where sin has made suffering probable, the amount of suffering one experiences is simply a matter of probability. A roll of the dice.

In other words, suffering is something that "just happens". Can't say I disagree here, but where does sin enter into the picture here? If suffering "just happens", then you don't need the idea of "sin". Likewise, you don't need the idea that death is punishment for sin.

Sounds more like some really don't like the whole concept of "sins of the father". I don't blame them for that, but it does means ignoring statements from god himself.

On what basis do you claim this, other than your own idle speculation? Considering that Christians have been willing to run with sillier premises over the past 2000 years, I think we need some solid evidence for your claim rather than just taking it as a default. Do you have any?

Especially since the verses repeatedly use the phrase, "to the third and fourth generation," which suggests we're likely dealing with an idiom or some other figure of speech that's been pulled from culture, translated, and printed into text.

Quote

I've noticed that your comments talks about modern interpretation. What about the interpretations of the passages were 4,000-odd years ago? I think that's a bit more relevant.

As in what the original author meant? It is and it isn't. First, as I mentioned above, the way the verses are written suggest that there's some figurative language going on that's likely lost to translation. So right away we're at a handicap in understanding the original author's true intent.

However, ignoring that, the verses are more of a historical point for Christians than a modern belief. Certain aspects of the ancient Jewish faith evolved over time, such as henotheism into monotheism and the idea of an afterlife. Earlier on, it's likely that the Jews did indeed believe that suffering in life was payment for sin, and that sin could be inherited to successive generations. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this theme died down in Judaism with books like Job that argued against this theology, and instead paved the way for the notion of personal accountability for one's sins in the afterlife.

So is it more relevant? Not to Christian theology, since no Christian denomination (that I know of) has ever taught that parents' sins are inherited by their children.

Quote

This is stuff said by god himself. What more do you need?

It's voiced by God, penned by a human. Again, I'm not a Bible literalist.

Quote

Again, we're dealing with the words of god himself. Exactly how can that be outmoded? By... god himself? Wonder how that works...

Christians believe that there are eternal truths about God, the universe, etc. However, our understanding of those truths has changed over time.

Quote

The point I was making in reply to your comment was that "original sin" is an example of "sins of the father". We have gotten off-track on the whole "proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime" thing, I'll give you that.

No, it is not. Original sin is simply the first sin, and is therefore notable as the point where sin entered the world.

Quote

In other words, suffering is something that "just happens". Can't say I disagree here, but where does sin enter into the picture here? If suffering "just happens", then you don't need the idea of "sin". Likewise, you don't need the idea that death is punishment for sin.

Where did I say that we need an idea of sin? I don't believe that sin nor suffering are particularly needed; I do believe that both exist.

The point I was making in reply to your comment was that "original sin" is an example of "sins of the father". We have gotten off-track on the whole "proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime" thing, I'll give you that.

No, it is not. Original sin is simply the first sin, and is therefore notable as the point where sin entered the world.

That's not the way 'Original Sin' was hammered into me (ex-Catholic). It was the first sin, and baptism is intended to wash away that sin. Otherwise, if I were not baptized, I would bear the responsibility of Original Sin. So, yes, at least according to Catholic doctrine, I did indeed inherit Original Sin.

I'm uncertain if that concept of 'Original Sin' is consistent amongst all Christian denominations or not, so take with a grain of salt.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

On what basis do you claim this, other than your own idle speculation? Considering that Christians have been willing to run with sillier premises over the past 2000 years, I think we need some solid evidence for your claim rather than just taking it as a default. Do you have any?

Especially since the verses repeatedly use the phrase, "to the third and fourth generation," which suggests we're likely dealing with an idiom or some other figure of speech that's been pulled from culture, translated, and printed into text.

I'm going off what the text itself says. I've checked, and there are a lot more verses that states or implies inherited sin.

Attributed to god:

Deuteronomy 23:2No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.

1 Kings 21:29 Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.

Jeremiah 16:10-11 When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the Lord decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we committed against the Lord our God?’ then say to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law.

Jeremiah 29:32 this is what the Lord says: I will surely punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his descendants. He will have no one left among this people, nor will he see the good things I will do for my people, declares the Lord, because he has preached rebellion against me.’

Attributed to other people:

1 Kings 2:32-33 The Lord will repay him for the blood he shed, because without my father David knowing it he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel’s army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah’s army—were better men and more upright than he. May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the Lord’s peace forever.”

Isaiah 14:21Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.

There are others, but this is enough to show that "inherited sin" is very much a part of the bible, and something that god didn't have a problem with; at least not in old testament times.

Quote

As in what the original author meant? It is and it isn't. First, as I mentioned above, the way the verses are written suggest that there's some figurative language going on that's likely lost to translation. So right away we're at a handicap in understanding the original author's true intent.

In light of the above, I think this part of the conversation is moot. Even without that repeated line, there's still plenty of verses to support this "inherited sin" idea.

Quote

However, ignoring that, the verses are more of a historical point for Christians than a modern belief. Certain aspects of the ancient Jewish faith evolved over time, such as henotheism into monotheism and the idea of an afterlife. Earlier on, it's likely that the Jews did indeed believe that suffering in life was payment for sin, and that sin could be inherited to successive generations. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this theme died down in Judaism with books like Job that argued against this theology, and instead paved the way for the notion of personal accountability for one's sins in the afterlife.

Well, I won't argue that theology changed over time, but now you have to account for a god that agreed with the old, and now agree with the new. At what point did god change his mind about it? (seems like he changed it at the same time everyone else did)

Quote

It's voiced by God, penned by a human. Again, I'm not a Bible literalist.

Why shoudn't I take the bible's words for it? If god voiced it, surely he conveyed his exact meaning into the text.

Quote

Christians believe that there are eternal truths about God, the universe, etc. However, our understanding of those truths has changed over time.

Lots of things in the bible, we ignore because our understanding have changed over time, such as slavery, selling your daughter, or branding people. At one point, god had no problems with any of those. Yet, once people started changing their minds about those things, so did god.

Quote

No, it is not. Original sin is simply the first sin, and is therefore notable as the point where sin entered the world.

Well, according to jdawg70, some sects of christianity do teach that Original Sin is something inherited.

Quote

Where did I say that we need an idea of sin? I don't believe that sin nor suffering are particularly needed; I do believe that both exist.

Actually, your theology does require the idea of sin. The centerpiece of christainty is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins (some say that Jesus had to suffer for our sins). Without sin, that centerpiece would not exist.

So wouldn't be sensible to assume that those with cancer were extra-sinful in life, given that god has saw fit to inflict suffering upon them?

is not what Christians believe.

Oh, noes I think The Christian Philosopher is confusing Aaron, with his Quantum Jesus Interpretation™ .

Jews™ originally noted that there was a tendency for people who did bad things to reap what they sowed. There is something to this, but when bad is done properly, bad will tend to get away with it, a bit more than is plausible if God were consistently punishing bad people. (see Hitler, George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Winona Ryder)

Jews™ also noted that there were some neutral things that people could do, and still end up in trouble, such as eating poo off your hands, eating uncooked pork, eating saturated fat, or having sex with someone who has a disease. They then vilified these neutral things, confused them with bad things, and forgot the wisdom in the origins.

Having blurred the distinction between what could plausibly be a punishment from God, or a punishment from natural law, you can now make up anything you want, if you need to explain anything that has happened.

This not being enough, Christians now have the added flexibility of inventions such as "free will", demons, works vs faith, new covenants, outdated thinking, prophecy etc. Like chess pieces, they can all be used to explain away any phenomena, according to the preference of the observer, without showing any evidence.

This has now been outdated by Mooby's Quantum Interpretation, where every possible explanation is superimposed. So, an event may be said to be 30% punishment from God, 50% natural law, 19% demonic possession[1], 1% prophecy. Any explanation can be true at the same time, without having to show that any possibilities are based on any evidence.

In fact, I don't even have to reply to Mooby, because I only made this post in 31.6% of possible universes. After this post, I will be in a different universe.

Where did I say that we need an idea of sin? I don't believe that sin nor suffering are particularly needed; I do believe that both exist.

Actually, your theology does require the idea of sin. The centerpiece of christainty is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins (some say that Jesus had to suffer for our sins). Without sin, that centerpiece would not exist.

Going back to Catholicism that would be true, as per the Catholic definition of sin. But I'm pretty sure that isn't Mooby's theology...so...Has Mooby given a definition of sin? It may defined such that the salvation offered by Jesus has nothing to do with sin. Mooby, do you have a definition for sin that resolves this?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Christians believe that death and suffering are due to sin, but not that either occurs in proportion to one's own sin. Rather, they believe that sin has corrupted the world, and that everyone--including cancer patients--is now living in that world.

In a world where sin has made suffering probable, the amount of suffering one experiences is simply a matter of probability. A roll of the dice.

I see. So Yahweh gives NO additional protection to any of his followers on earth. You get good times or you get bad times simply at random - god sends no favours, sends no smites, gives no protection from the bad stuff that happens. That's a rather bleak religion to follow, I'm not sure where the appeal lies in a "good" god who doesn't lend any assistance to his devoted followers?

It's interesting that you bring up Job, because Job is actually a response to that theology, using a story to refute it as an adequate explanation for human suffering given the observation that exceptions to that system definitely seem to occur. Job's friends are stand-ins for that older way of thinking, and by the end of the story God Himself comes down to refute their claims.

Interesting YOU bring up Job, because it seems to give the opposite view to the two paragaphs I've quoted above - that Yahweh DOES provide protection from the bad (else why else would Satan say "Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?") because he has to remove that protection for Satan to be able to touch Yahweh's follower. And, of course, once the little wager was over, Yahweh "blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses". Sounds like we SHOULD expect good things to come to those who believe, and bad things to happen to those Yahweh turns away from.

So I'm a little confused here Mooby - do we reap in this world what we sow, or not?

That's not the way 'Original Sin' was hammered into me (ex-Catholic). It was the first sin, and baptism is intended to wash away that sin. Otherwise, if I were not baptized, I would bear the responsibility of Original Sin. So, yes, at least according to Catholic doctrine, I did indeed inherit Original Sin.

I'm uncertain if that concept of 'Original Sin' is consistent amongst all Christian denominations or not, so take with a grain of salt.

You're not being punished for the first sinful act; rather, the act created a fundamental change in humanity that still exists to this day. As elaborated further, "Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. "

The image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin that you would confess and receive forgiveness for is not accurate.

Deuteronomy 23:2No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.

The assembly of the Lord is never equated to the afterlife. Per Google, it appears to have been an Israelite political body.

Quote

1 Kings 21:29 Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.

The punishment is still on Ahab: his household name will lose its prominence in the future. God doesn't say he'll punish Ahab's son; just that he'll forgo removing Ahab's family from prominence until Ahab passes on the patriarchy of his family.

Quote

Jeremiah 16:10-11 When you tell these people all this and they ask you, ‘Why has the Lord decreed such a great disaster against us? What wrong have we done? What sin have we committed against the Lord our God?’ then say to them, ‘It is because your ancestors forsook me,’ declares the Lord, ‘and followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law.

And what does verse 12 say?

Quote

Jeremiah 29:32 this is what the Lord says: I will surely punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his descendants. He will have no one left among this people, nor will he see the good things I will do for my people, declares the Lord, because he has preached rebellion against me.’

God's speaking of putting down a rebellion, in which case He's disabling Shemaiah and anyone else in his family that could keep the rebellion going.

Even considering I quite willingly pointed out that inherited sin was present in early Jewish belief, I don't find the above particularly compelling. The other two are, again, consistent with early Jewish belief with regards to the evolving notion of an afterlife.

Quote

Well, I won't argue that theology changed over time, but now you have to account for a god that agreed with the old, and now agree with the new. At what point did god change his mind about it? (seems like he changed it at the same time everyone else did)

Again, as I mentioned before, the Bible was penned by humans. The Bible reflects God's revelation as currently understood by the person writing the text at the time they wrote it.

Quote

Why shoudn't I take the bible's words for it? If god voiced it, surely he conveyed his exact meaning into the text.

The Biblical authors reflected their current understanding of God's revelation in the text. As someone who is not a literalist, I'm not forced to consider such notions as God sitting someone down and telling them exactly what to write. Rather, I view it more as someone writing their understanding of God into the text, and thus when we're reading the text we're in many cases reading the interpretation of the events rather than a word-for-word retelling of those same events.

Why shouldn't you take the Bible's word for it? Well, as someone who isn't a Christian, I would imagine that taking the Bible literally would be inconsistent with your world view, as such a view pretty much requires acceptance of a deity. Rather, you're pretty much forced to look at the Bible as human interpretation without any divine guidance whatsoever, or at least no guidance strong enough to form a coherent belief system.

Why would you insist the Bible must be read in a way that the majority of Christians in the world don't read it, and has scant (if any) evidence of ever being read that way by a significant number until ~150 years ago (~1800 years of Christian history)? I don't know. Perhaps because you find it easier to attack that way, perhaps because you were brought up in the newer fundamentalist movement of Christianity, perhaps because you never considered any other way to read the text, or perhaps some factor (or combination of factors) I'm not aware of.

Quote

Quote

Where did I say that we need an idea of sin? I don't believe that sin nor suffering are particularly needed; I do believe that both exist.

Actually, your theology does require the idea of sin. The centerpiece of christainty is Jesus dying on the cross for our sins (some say that Jesus had to suffer for our sins). Without sin, that centerpiece would not exist.

I mentioned nothing about my theology in that quote. Sin is prominent in Christianity because we believe it exists, not the other way around. The comment I responded to asked why we need the idea of sin; I replied that we don't need the idea of sin as we don't need sin itself. And yes, if we didn't have sin we wouldn't need Jesus. But we do have sin which is why we need Jesus.

In other words, if we had stayed in the Eden state forever, we wouldn't need anything in the Bible past the 2nd chapter of Genesis. And I don't think we particularly needed to leave that state, but we did and so the rest of the Bible exists. More clear?

This has now been outdated by Mooby's Quantum Interpretation, where every possible explanation is superimposed. So, an event may be said to be 30% punishment from God, 50% natural law, 19% demonic possession[1], 1% prophecy. Any explanation can be true at the same time, without having to show that any possibilities are based on any evidence.

Going back to Catholicism that would be true, as per the Catholic definition of sin. But I'm pretty sure that isn't Mooby's theology...so...Has Mooby given a definition of sin? It may defined such that the salvation offered by Jesus has nothing to do with sin. Mooby, do you have a definition for sin that resolves this?

I think the best (though not perfect) image of sin is as spiritual hamartia.

I think the Catechism does a pretty good job of explaining it more specifically (Section II.)

I see. So Yahweh gives NO additional protection to any of his followers on earth. You get good times or you get bad times simply at random - god sends no favours, sends no smites, gives no protection from the bad stuff that happens.

I didn't say that; you're extrapolating my posts a bit. I'm saying that there's not a direct correlation between the two as a result. In other words, this is the world we live in and thus we have the ability to be affected by that world.

I do indeed believe God can and does interact in this world (I'm a theist, not a deist); I just don't believe that His followers don't have any special immunity to this world. I'm open to the power of prayer and God's ability to intervene; I just don't believe that intervention happens by default and with every believer. Thus, while I believe that God has the ability to, say, cure a cancer patient, I don't believe we have any theological basis to see a cancer patient's current state as an indication of that person's spiritual failure (since I don't believe spiritual success automatically results in a miraculous cure).

Interesting YOU bring up Job, because it seems to give the opposite view to the two paragaphs I've quoted above - that Yahweh DOES provide protection from the bad (else why else would Satan say "Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?") because he has to remove that protection for Satan to be able to touch Yahweh's follower.

From Job's point of view, he has no way of knowing whether that protection is active or not at any given time, and Job's actions are not the reason the protection is lifted. The point of the story is that the larger scope of God's plan is not directly observable to humans, and we shouldn't make hasty conclusions about it based off of our limited observations.

The Catholic Church does not teach that you bear the responsibility of the sin itself. The original act from Adam was a sin, but the state that's contracted is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

You're not being punished for the first sinful act; rather, the act created a fundamental change in humanity that still exists to this day. As elaborated further, "Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. "

The image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin that you would confess and receive forgiveness for is not accurate.

And original sin still worries me. By all means, we've not commited a sin ourselves, but it was a change in our nature that's the sin and as a result we suffer for it. The above is very similar to what I was taught in school.

In essence, we are punished for simply being born. Being 'saved' so to speak is conditional, you have to be baptised and give your life to God and if you commit sins yourself, seek forgivness. For me, that's the problem, because it's a highly unfair system that's based on which family you're born into. Especially with this system all we have to go on is faith and not knowing that God exists in a sea of many gods and godesses. Such a level of ambiguity in His existence shows that it's not insane to think there will be non-believers, not because they're bad people turning their back on God. If anything, it's God turning His back on His creation, because of what Adam and Eve did. They betrayed his trust. It was God who cast man out of the garden of Eden, it was God who designed us (and created human nature), it was God who designed this cruel world and in the bible, it is God who is cruel and vengeful to his creation. The snake was only temptation.

If He did not want man to be inflicted with original sin, then he would have removed it from our nature, pain and suffering is a little extreme - he could have removed temptation from our nature, after all, he doesn't want man to listen to temptation. People tend to argue 'free will' on that point, but if God has designed us with all our instincts, all our flaws and desires, these are all factors that drive our will and we've had no choice in our own nature, whilst temptation is a desire we possess, there are desires we do not posess, that aren't a part of our will. I had no choice about the garden of Eden, perhaps I have a choice to be baptised, but I am non-believer, I see no world where a God could exist. It would be fruitless for me to take every precaution every religion dictates to save my soul...if there's such a thing. But, even if I were to humour the idea I have the option to choose God, what about the many who have been raised to a different god, to a different religion? Or the many who do not know the God of the bible or what He says. They've not decided their own fates, but are simply born into it. In essence, we are being punished for the actions of somebody else and are expected to play the lottery in finding who the right God is and the right way to follow Him.

I can see no reasoning behind the suffering of innocents. I can understand why people use original sin as an explanation of why the world is the way it is. Humans are afflicted and it's through faith in God and Jesus that you will be cured, but to be honest, when you look at some of the behaviour of God and how he punishes people and the justification for it, it makes it hard to see Him as good.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Even considering I quite willingly pointed out that inherited sin was present in early Jewish belief, I don't find the above particularly compelling.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that god--at that point--accepted the idea of inherited sin? If so, then why change his mind about it? If not, then why keep silent about it until much later?

Quote

Again, as I mentioned before, the Bible was penned by humans. The Bible reflects God's revelation as currently understood by the person writing the text at the time they wrote it.

If the bible was penned by humans (not disputting this part), how do you know they involed "god's revelation"?

Quote

The Biblical authors reflected their current understanding of God's revelation in the text. As someone who is not a literalist, I'm not forced to consider such notions as God sitting someone down and telling them exactly what to write. Rather, I view it more as someone writing their understanding of God into the text, and thus when we're reading the text we're in many cases reading the interpretation of the events rather than a word-for-word retelling of those same events.

I have to ask; why doesn't god arrange for some major updates to the bible? The last writings were some 2,000-odd years ago. Seems like by that point, a revision of our "understanding of god" would be long overdue.

Quote

Why would you insist the Bible must be read in a way that the majority of Christians in the world don't read it, and has scant (if any) evidence of ever being read that way by a significant number until ~150 years ago (~1800 years of Christian history)? I don't know. Perhaps because you find it easier to attack that way, perhaps because you were brought up in the newer fundamentalist movement of Christianity, perhaps because you never considered any other way to read the text, or perhaps some factor (or combination of factors) I'm not aware of.

The majority of Christians in the world don't read the bible. They only know what they were fed from their pastors or whatever their favorite select passage is. Myself, I can only look at what is said in the bible, and the idea of "punishing many for the action of a few" is very much a part of it, at least in the old testament (which is roughly third-quarter of it)

Quote

I mentioned nothing about my theology in that quote. Sin is prominent in Christianity because we believe it exists, not the other way around. The comment I responded to asked why we need the idea of sin; I replied that we don't need the idea of sin as we don't need sin itself. And yes, if we didn't have sin we wouldn't need Jesus. But we do have sin which is why we need Jesus.

So why do you believe sin exists, and exactly what does it "do"? It seems we need some clarification on what your idea of sin is, and how it affect our everyday lives. Thus far, I'm not getting the impression that it does much of anything.

That's not the way 'Original Sin' was hammered into me (ex-Catholic). It was the first sin, and baptism is intended to wash away that sin. Otherwise, if I were not baptized, I would bear the responsibility of Original Sin. So, yes, at least according to Catholic doctrine, I did indeed inherit Original Sin.

I'm uncertain if that concept of 'Original Sin' is consistent amongst all Christian denominations or not, so take with a grain of salt.

You're not being punished for the first sinful act; rather, the act created a fundamental change in humanity that still exists to this day. As elaborated further, "Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. "

The image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin that you would confess and receive forgiveness for is not accurate.

I think the image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin is accurate insofar as the result, that a human being's nature (or soul or whatever) is sinful until actively purged in some manner. That the result of a human being's nature (or soul or whatever) being sinful is to be separated, eventually eternally, from god, potentially (depending on who you talk to) eternally suffering.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

In essence, we are punished for simply being born. Being 'saved' so to speak is conditional, you have to be baptised and give your life to God and if you commit sins yourself, seek forgivness. For me, that's the problem, because it's a highly unfair system that's based on which family you're born into.

Sounds like you were raised an exclusivist. Catholics are traditional inclusivists, though I tend to lean closer to relativistic inclusivism.

Quote

I had no choice about the garden of Eden, perhaps I have a choice to be baptised, but I am non-believer, I see no world where a God could exist.

You did have a choice about the first time you chose to sin in your own life, whenever that may have been. Sure, you might have not signed up for the fallen world from the outset, but you've almost certainly bought into it at some point of your life. Yes, it's unfortunate that you have to suffer the negative consequences of others' actions, just as it's unfortunate that others have to suffer the consequences of yours, but that's something that we as a species have not conquered yet and it doesn't look like we will any time in the near future. Sure, you and I didn't start the ball rolling, but we aren't innocent bystanders, either.

Quote

It would be fruitless for me to take every precaution every religion dictates to save my soul...if there's such a thing. But, even if I were to humour the idea I have the option to choose God, what about the many who have been raised to a different god, to a different religion? Or the many who do not know the God of the bible or what He says. They've not decided their own fates, but are simply born into it. In essence, we are being punished for the actions of somebody else and are expected to play the lottery in finding who the right God is and the right way to follow Him.

In other words, while Catholicism considers itself the most true Church, it's quick to point out that everyone is in a different place on their own personal journeys, and it doesn't think people are automatically condemned for not following the "right" religion.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea that god--at that point--accepted the idea of inherited sin? If so, then why change his mind about it? If not, then why keep silent about it until much later?

Disagree. It was the early Jews who believed in inherited sin, and wrote that interpretation into the text. And it wasn't that God was being particularly silent; it's that the Jewish theology was still maturing and God was revealing to them via progressive revelation.

Quote

If the bible was penned by humans (not disputting this part), how do you know they involed "god's revelation"?

I don't.

Quote

I have to ask; why doesn't god arrange for some major updates to the bible? The last writings were some 2,000-odd years ago. Seems like by that point, a revision of our "understanding of god" would be long overdue.

God's message as contained in the Bible reached its complete fulfillment with Jesus, making the New Testament the definitive end to the Bible. For Catholics, human understanding of that message continues to grow through Sacred Tradition.

Quote

So why do you believe sin exists, and exactly what does it "do"? It seems we need some clarification on what your idea of sin is, and how it affect our everyday lives. Thus far, I'm not getting the impression that it does much of anything.

I provided two sources for that in my last post, the first being how I generally view it, and the second being a more technical description of what I actually believe. The second link in particular mentions numerous negative consequences of sin.

I think the image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin is accurate insofar as the result, that a human being's nature (or soul or whatever) is sinful until actively purged in some manner. That the result of a human being's nature (or soul or whatever) being sinful is to be separated, eventually eternally, from god, potentially (depending on who you talk to) eternally suffering.

The Catholic Church does not teach that human nature is inherently sinful. You might be thinking of some Protestant churches that teach that.

You did have a choice about the first time you chose to sin in your own life, whenever that may have been. Sure, you might have not signed up for the fallen world from the outset, but you've almost certainly bought into it at some point of your life. Yes, it's unfortunate that you have to suffer the negative consequences of others' actions, just as it's unfortunate that others have to suffer the consequences of yours, but that's something that we as a species have not conquered yet and it doesn't look like we will any time in the near future. Sure, you and I didn't start the ball rolling, but we aren't innocent bystanders, either.

However, wouldn't that only apply to believers? Non-believers don't know sin, they may know of it from knowing of Christianity. My understanding of morality and the understanding of morality of many others is not based on Christian ideals, so I could be doing something wrong without realising it. Sure I have choice in the actions I make, but as far as I am aware, my morality won't condemn me. because as far as I am aware there is no life after death or some great deity governing the universe. As far as I am aware, sin is only a concept in a book I see as fiction. Now, I've not chosen to be a non-believer, just as I am sure you've not chosen to be a believer. Because if you 'choose' to believe or not believe, then you're deluding yourself, belief is more natural, to force it via choice it to go against how you see reality.

However, I went to a Church of England school, I will admit I am not as knowledgeable on the Catholic side of things, my Dad's side of the family is Catholic, but my parents never raised me on religion. Most of the schools in the area were CoE, but they chose the one went to because it offered a great education and it did. Whilst the Christianity did rub off on me, but by the time I was 9 or 10 it kinda went away.

Quote from: Mooby

Again, this seems like more of an issue for strict exclusivists, but for the record here's the Catholic perspective:"All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."29

In other words, while Catholicism considers itself the most true Church, it's quick to point out that everyone is in a different place on their own personal journeys, and it doesn't think people are automatically condemned for not following the "right" religion.

This sounds like what a friend of mine believes, I guess it makes sense as she's got a Catholic background, though she denies being one herself. Well, I'll admit it is more reasonable than some of the other versions I've heard. It sounds a little bit like the Buddhist approach, everybody has their own 'path', though it makes no distinction on any kind of 'right' path. Surprise surprise, this atheist agrees with much of Buddhism's philosophies.

So anyway, is what you're saying compatible with the above. So by being of a different religion (and I assume by proxy, by being non-religious?), I am not automatically condemned, is this inclusive of any sins I commit without knowing I am sinning? Or is ignorance not enough? I know for my friend, she says as long as you are good, then it does not matter if you're a non-believer, but she didn't back it with anything from any Christian teachings. If say, I was a fornicator, as a non-believer, does my sin condemn me, or am I required to turn to the light of Christ? Or would we be talking sins of a more serious nature? Say if I was a murderer or rapist.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2013, 04:18:09 AM by Seppuku »

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

I think the image of original sin as comparable to a personal sin is accurate insofar as the result, that a human being's nature (or soul or whatever) is sinful until actively purged in some manner. That the result of a human being's nature (or soul or whatever) being sinful is to be separated, eventually eternally, from god, potentially (depending on who you talk to) eternally suffering.

The Catholic Church does not teach that human nature is inherently sinful. You might be thinking of some Protestant churches that teach that.

Alright, I'll buy that original sin is unequal to personal sin, so we'll just use the phrase original taint to avoid the confusion. I'll also concede that inherently may be considered an inappropriate word as well. So maybe it isn't accurate to say that original sin is inherited through one's father. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that being in a fallen state, separated from god, and destined to hell is the default state, at birth.

I guess I'm just not really, truly getting the difference in consequences between having 'original sin' and committing a 'mortal sin'.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

The idea of personal suffering being proportional to one's evil acts (or one's ancestors' evil acts) was a theme in early Jewish theology, not Christian theology.

What you do not quote is:

Joh:9:1: And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.Joh:9:2: And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?Joh:9:3: Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This is Jesus's new idea. He dismisses sin = disease, just as you claimed for your impressive interpretation of Job. The fact is that, according to the mythology, God makes people blind, lame, etc., so that those people can know how great is God's power. This leaves people in a constant state of uncertainty. Psychologically, this is how you want your subject people to be, for "only you can save them."

Romans 9 continues this theme:

Ro:9:15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.Ro:9:16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Paul, in his attempt to find converts amongst the Gentiles, addresses the Jews as above and then thus:

Ro:9:21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?Ro:9:22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:Ro:9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,Ro:9:24: Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So we see that everything that happens to you personally is an Act of God. It is part of His PR machine and is random. Romans:9:21, is particularly telling, as it appears that some people are born merely to stoke the fires of hell.

Alright, I'll buy that original sin is unequal to personal sin, so we'll just use the phrase original taint to avoid the confusion. I'll also concede that inherently may be considered an inappropriate word as well. So maybe it isn't accurate to say that original sin is inherited through one's father. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that being in a fallen state, separated from god, and destined to hell is the default state, at birth.

I guess I'm just not really, truly getting the difference in consequences between having 'original sin' and committing a 'mortal sin'.

The Catholic encyclopedia states as follows:

Quote

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43).

The Catholics thus have been taught to believe that "original sin" is a consequence of being human and descended from Adam (note how this also demands a belief in Adam and Eve!)

If you are interested in the subject, which is completely proof-free, the link http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm will show you the amount of baseless supposition that has taken place to arrive at this concept and its definition.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2013, 03:03:23 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Disagree. It was the early Jews who believed in inherited sin, and wrote that interpretation into the text.

So... a fair chunk of the bible is inaccurate or outdated? I can't imagine that a lot of christains would feel comfortable with that idea.

Quote

And it wasn't that God was being particularly silent; it's that the Jewish theology was still maturing and God was revealing to them via progressive revelation.

Why not reveal "no hereditary sin" earlier, rather than allowing this misconception to go on for several years? (centuries?) Seems like it would be easy enough to say something like "you suffer from sin, but there is no such thing as 'inherited sin'".

Quote

Quote

If the bible was penned by humans (not disputting this part), how do you know they involed "god's revelation"?

I don't.

Then why believe that god was involved at all? Why the bible instead of the Koran or any other religious text?

Quote

God's message as contained in the Bible reached its complete fulfillment with Jesus, making the New Testament the definitive end to the Bible. For Catholics, human understanding of that message continues to grow through Sacred Tradition.

Where is all of this in the bible? I recall nothing about "the text is complete, add no more books to it".

Quote

I provided two sources for that in my last post, the first being how I generally view it, and the second being a more technical description of what I actually believe. The second link in particular mentions numerous negative consequences of sin.